Quote:You're losing me here. I'm right there with you that the process of getting onto unemployment or welfare should be much harder, and the process of staying on welfare harder yet, but it's hardly fair to tell someone that they can't have their unemployment check this week because they didn't sell the Xbox that their kids love so much. I could get a used Xbox One in good condition off of Craigslist for $150. That's not going to go very far, and I'd argue that you'd actually be doing more harm than good by taking away the kids' favorite toy. Same goes for TVs. Does someone on unemployment need a 55" flat screen? No, but they'd be lucky to get $100 for it at a pawn shop, and not a whole lot more on Craigslist.

 

But why stop there? What about their smartphone that they're using to search for work? Those can fetch a pretty decent price, especially if they're newer iPhone or Galaxy models. What about the second car that the wife uses to take the kids to school? Surely you don't need two cars now that one family member is unemployed, right? Dogs and cats are hardly necessities, and if you've ever taken one to the vet or bought it halfway-decent food, you know how expensive they are. Should people be forced to sell or give away their pets to qualify for welfare or unemployment? I'll tell you this right now; I'd sooner spend my last penny on my legal defense after I deal with anyone who tries to take my dogs than give them away.

 

Point being, I don't think it's even remotely close to fair to say that someone on unemployment or welfare should be required, or even expected to sell off what they owned before landing there. If someone is using welfare or unemployment dollars to go out and buy new phones, consoles, TVs or computers, then I'd consider that to be misuse of funds bordering on fraud, and that should be a reason to disqualify someone from receiving government assistance. I'm actually not entirely opposed to people on welfare being required to submit receipts, bank statements and a simple reconciliation form every month that proves that they're spending their welfare money on food, shelter and utilities, not cell phones, TVs and manicures. I don't think it's wrong to ask someone who's been living on the government's dime for an extended period of time to forfeit privacy in exchange for receiving further assistance. Asking someone to sell off items they'd earned with their own money as a condition of receiving government money, though, crosses a few lines for me.

 

Perhaps I was too harsh with my comments, but I was trying to get a point across.  For one, people are certainly not "starving" in this country.  My point is all about priorities and how so many priorities seem to be focused on "wants" rather than "needs".

 

Should cell phone service, cable/satellite service and internet access be a "right"?  I don't think so.  Not when there are alternatives that are free and/or less expensive and available to anyone.

 

Is the problem of poverty in our society the fault of "corporations" and "CEO's"?  Nope.

 

The problem of poverty is because our culture demands to be "with the times".

---